IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

Appellate Division

PRESENT:

Mr. Justice Hasan Foez Siddique

-Chief Justice Mr. Justice Md. Nuruzzaman

Mr. Justice Borhanuddin

Ms. Justice Krishna Debnath

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2020

(From the judgment and order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.10506 of 2019).

The  Secretary,  Bangladesh Council, Dhaka.

=Versus= Maksuda Parvin and others.

Bar     ……...Appellant. ……...Respondents.

For the Appellant.  :Mr.  S.  M  Kafil  Uddin,  Advocate

instructed  by  Mr.  Zainul  Abedin, Advocate-on-Record.

For the Respondents :Mr. Qumrul Haque Siddique, Advocate,

instructed  by  Mrs.  Madhumaloty Chowdhury Barua, Advocate-on-Record.

Date of Hearing  :The 11th and 13th April, 2022. Date of Judgment.  :The 13th April, 2022.

J U D G M E N T

Borhanuddin,J: This civil appeal by leave is directed

against the judgment and order dated 09.12.2019 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.10506 of 2019 making the Rule absolute with direction.

Facts leading to disposal of the appeal are that the respondent nos.1-5 herein as petitioners preferred the writ petition under Article 102 of the Constitution challenging inaction of the respondents not to provide with the registration cards infavour of the petitioners to sit for the enrollment examination and also seeking direction to set a new schedule to fill up form allowing the petitioners to sit for the enrollment examination of the Bar Council contending interalia that the petitioners after completing their LL.B (2 years course) from Prime University, Mirpur Campus, in 2014 to 2016 sessions submitted intimation for pupilage to the Bangladesh Bar Council following the provision of the Bangladesh Bar Council Order,1972 and since then they have been working as apprentice lawyers in their respective local Bar Association; After completion of the pupilage period the petitioners contacted with the respondent no.6 Secretary, Bangladesh Bar Council for registration to sit for the enrollment examination but the petitioners were informed that there is no decision to accord permission them for registration; Subsequently on 04.04.2019 the petitioners presented a representation to the respondent no.3 Vice Chairman, Bangladesh Bar Council demanding immediate action to allow them to get registration for enrollment examination; Again on 18.08.2019 the petitioners made a representation to the respondent no.6 requesting him to take appropriate steps to allow them to sit for the upcoming enrollment examination; But there has been no progress in the matter despite repeated request by the petitioners; The respondent no.6 on 26.04.2017 issued a notice to the private university authorities in connection with the 2(two) years LL.B (pass) course directing them to supply information about the students who successfully pass the 2(two) years LL.B (pass) course by 08.02.2017; The Prime University alongwith other private universities supplied the aforesaid information to the Bangladesh Bar Council including details of the petitioners as successful students; The petitioners have completed their graduation in the year 2016 which is within the specified period i.e. 08.02.2017 as per notice dated 26.04.2017 issued by the respondent no.6 Secretary of the Bar Council.

But since no action has been taken by the Bangladesh Bar Council regarding supply of registration cards infavour of the petitioners for the enrollment examination, the petitioners having found no other alternative efficacious remedy invoke the writ jurisdiction.

Upon hearing learned Advocate for the petitioners, a Division Bench of the High Court Division issued a Rule Nisi upon the respondents to show cause.

Respondent no.1 Bangladesh Bar Council contested the Rule Nisi by filing an affidavit-in-opposition contending interalia that the Bangladesh Bar Council after conducting a thorough scrutiny in presence of representatives of the Prime University, Mirpur Campus, by way of resolution dated 15.09.2014 decided not to allow the students of LL.B (pass) course of the said university to sit for the enrollment examination pursuant to University Grant Commission (hereinafter referred as UGC) circular dated 23.04.2014 wherein the said university was authorized to run regular 4(four) years LL.B programme only; After passing such resolution as per UGC direction, the respondent Bar Council issued circular on 30.11.2014 and relayed it to all by hanging it in the notice board and also uploading in the official website of the Bar Council; As such the writ petitioners have no legal right to participate in the enrollment examination conducted by the Bar Council.

After contested hearing, a Division Bench of the High Court Division made the Rule absolute declaring inaction of the respondent Bar Council not to provide with the registration cards infavour of the petitioners to sit for the upcoming enrollment examination as without lawful authority and also directed the respondent no.2 Chairman, Bangladesh Bar Council to set a new schedule to fill up form and allow the petitioners to sit for the enrollment examination.

Feeling aggrieved, the respondent no.6 Secretary of the Bangladesh Bar Council as petitioner filed Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.473 of 2020 and obtained leave granting order. Consequently, instant civil appeal arose.

Mr. S. M. Kafil Uddin, learned Advocate appearing for the present petitioner after taking us through the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division, leave granting order and resolution dated 15.09.2014 adopted by the Bangladesh Bar Council submits that the High Court Division failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective inasmuch as Bangladesh Bar Council adopted a resolution on 15.09.2014 in presence of the representatives of the Prime University and decided not to allow the students of LL.B (pass) course of the said university to sit for the enrollment examination pursuant to UGC circular dated 23.04.2014 and the said university was only authorized to run regular 4(four) years LL.B programme and after adopting such resolution pursuant to UGC direction the Bar Council issued circular on 30.11.2014 as such the petitioners have no legal right to participate in the enrollment examination conducted by the Bangladesh Bar Council. He also submits that the High Court Division passed the impugned judgment and order without considering the facts that this Division observed in Civil Appeal No.235 of 2014 that ‘the Bangladesh Bar Council has exclusive power to recognize a degree in law obtain by any person from any university or college and it has power to curtail/exonerate the power to practice of any person in district courts or in the High Court Division’. He further submits that the High Court Division in passing the impugned judgment and order failed to appreciate that it is settled by this Division that Bangladesh Bar Council shall frame Rules with approval of the Government to monitor the standard of legal education conducted by the universities and law colleges of the country. 

On the other hand, Mr. Qumrul Haque Siddique learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents as students admitted in the university for studying law on payment of high fees and completed the course but the UGC, the regulating authority, did not stopped the university from running the (pass) course and thus allowed the university cheat the students for which the Bangladesh Bar Council cannot penalize the cheated students. He also submits that Bar Council is punishing the students for the wrong done by the university instead of taking any legal action against the wrong doer university. He next submits that this Division by its judgment dated 08.02.2017 directed that ‘no private university shall issue bachelor of law degree unless the person undergoes 4(four) years education in law course and this direction shall have prospective effect’ as such the High Court Division rightly passed the impugned judgment and order under Article 111 of the Constitution. He submits that the Bangladesh Bar Council being a statutory public authority issued circular dated 26.04.2017 asking universities to submit list of students who completed LL.B 2(two) years (pass) course before 08.02.2017 and accordingly Prime University, Mirpur Campus, submitted the list of the successful students including the writ-petitioners but Bar Council refused to give them registration on the plea of resolution dated 15.09.2014 and as such the High Court Division has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order taking note of the double standard of the Bar Council.

Heard learned Advocate for the parties. Perused the papers/documents contained in the paper book.

We have thoroughly and meticulously gone through the minutes of the resolution dated 15.09.2014 adopted by the Bangladesh Bar Council in presence of the representatives of the Prime University. The relevant portion of the

resolution is quoted hereinunder:

ÔÔkZ©mg~n: (kZ© ÕKÕ cÖ‡hvR¨ nB‡e)

cÖvBg wek^we ¨vj‡qi cÿ nB ‡Z ïbvbx‡Z AskMÖnY K‡ib, 1| Rbve †gv: Avkivd

Avjx, †Pqvig¨vb, †evW ©Ae Uªvw÷, cÖvBg wek^we ¨vjq, 2| Rbve gxi kvnveywÏb, wmwbqi fvBm-‡Pqvig¨vb, cÖvBg wek^we ¨vjq, 3| Rbve G. †K. Gg. mvBdzjøvn, †WcywU †iwRóªvi, cÖvBg wek^we ¨vjq| cÖvBg wek^we ¨vjq, wgicyi K¨v¤úvm, evi KvDw݇j Zvnv‡ i wek^we ¨vjq nB‡Z DËxY© 1553 Rb jÕ MÖ¨vR‡ yqU‡ i ZvwjKv

†cÖiY Kwiqv‡Q| ïbvbx‡Z cÖvBg wek^we ¨vjq cÖwZwbwa Rvbvb A‰ea K¨v¤úvm jBqv cÖvBg wek^we ¨vj‡qi †h gvgjv wQj Dnv A ¨ 15 †m‡Þ¤i^, 2014 gnvgvb¨ mycÖxg ‡Kv‡Ui© Avcxj wefv‡M wmwcGj bs-2282 wb®úwË nBqv‡Q Ges gnvgvb¨ Avcxj wefvM cÖvBg wek^we ¨vj‡qi DËiv K¨v¤úvm‡K A‰ea †Nvlbv Kwiqv‡Q Ges wgicyi K¨v¤úvm‡K ‰ea K¨v¤úvm wnmv‡e ¯^xK…wZ w qv‡Q| Zvnviv mfvq ¯^xKvi K‡ib  †h, gvgjv-‡gvKÏgv Zvnv‡ i fz‡j I wek^we ¨vjq AvBb gvb¨ bv Kwiqv wek^we ¨vjq cwiPvjbv Kivi Rb¨B nBqv‡Q Ges GBRb¨ Zvnviv h‡_ó wkÿv cvBqv‡Q| mfvq

Zvnviv A½xKvi K‡ib †h, fwel¨‡Z cÖvBg wek^we ¨vjq Avi AvBb f½ Kwiqv AvBb wkÿv Kvh©µg cwiPvjbv Kwi‡eb bv Ges †mwgóvi cÖwZ 50 R‡bi †ewk QvÎ-QvÎx fwZ© KivB‡eb bv Ges GjGj.we m¤§vb ivwLqv GjGj.we (cvm) †Kvm© eÜ Kwiqv ‡eb|

cÖvBg wek^we ¨vjq wgicyi K¨v¤úvm nB‡Z 2012, 2013 I 2014 mv‡j DËxY© †h

1553 Rb jÕ MÖvR‡ yqU‡ i ZvwjKv evi KvDw݇j †cÖiY Kwiqv‡Q Zvnv mfvi wbKU A¯^vfvweK g‡b nBqv‡Q| ïbvbx‡Z cÖvBg wek^we ¨vj‡qi cÖwZwbwa Rvbvb †h, GjGj.we. Abvm© †Kv‡m© 2012, 2013 I 2014 mv‡j †gvU 154 Rb GjGj.we Abvm© †cÖvMÖv‡g DËxY© nBqv‡Q Ges evKx 1399 Rb GjGj.we cvm †Kv‡m© DËxY© nBqv‡Q| mfv bxwZMZ wm×všÍ MÖnb K‡i †h, †emiKvix wek^we ¨vjq¸wj cvewjK

wek^we ¨vj‡qi b¨vq GjGj.we Abvm© ev Gj Gj.we cvm ‡Kvm© Gi †h †Kvb GKwU †Kvm© cwiPvjbv Kwi‡e| Avi †h mKj †emiKvix wek^we ¨vjq GjGj.we Abvm© I GjGj.we cvm †Kvm© GKB mv‡_ cwiPvjbv Kwi‡e Zvnv‡ i ïaygvÎ GjGj.we Abvm© DËxY‡© i evi KvDwÝj †iwR‡óªkb cÖ vb Kwi‡e; †emiKvix wek^we ¨vjq nB‡Z GjGj.we cvm †Kv‡m© DËxY©‡ i evi KvDwÝj nB‡Z †iwR‡óªkb cÖ vb Kiv nB‡e bv| ZvQvovI c~e©eZ©x mfvq Aby‡gv b † Iqv 31 wU †emiKvix wek^we ¨vjqI GKB

kZ©c~ib mv‡c‡ÿ †iwR‡óªkb cvB‡e Ges D³ wek^we ¨vjq¸wj nB‡Z DËxY©‡ i ZvwjKv Zvnv‡ i ¯^-¯^ wek^we ¨vj‡qi fvBm-P¨v‡Ýji I †iwRóªvi KZ©„K mZ¨vqb c~e©K evi KvDw݇j nvW© Kwc I †cbWªvB‡f mdU Kwc Ges Dnvi mwnZ GKwU A½xKvibvgvmn evi KvDw݇j †cÖib Kwi‡Z nB‡e| DcvPvh© I †iwRóªvi KZ…©K GKwU A½xKvibvgv †cÖiY Kwi‡Z nB‡e GB g‡g© †h, Zvnv‡ i †cÖwiZ ZvwjKvi mKj jÕ MÖvR‡ yqU BDwRwm Aby‡gvw Z K¨v¤úvm nB‡Z DËxY© nBqv‡Q Ges Zvnviv †emiKvix wek^we ¨vjq AvBb, 2010 AbymiY Kwiqv AvBb wkÿv Kvh©µg cwiPvjbv Kwi‡e, D”P gva¨wgK cixÿvi dj cÖKv‡ki ci eQ ‡i m‡eŸv”©P 50 Rb QvÎ-QvÎx jÕ MÖvR‡ yqkb †Kv‡m© fwZ© KivB‡e| AvBb wkÿvi wel‡q evsjv‡ k evi KvDw݇ji wb‡ ©kbv gvb¨ Kwi‡e Ges evi KvDwÝj †cÖwiZ cwi k©K j‡K wek^we ¨vjq cwi k©‡bi mgq me©vZ¥K mn‡hvwMZv Kwi‡e| GB welqwU evi KvDwÝj †bvwUk †ev‡W© weÁwß AvKv‡i cÖKv‡ki Rb¨ Awdm‡K wb‡ ©k cÖ vb Kiv nBj|

mfvq mvwe©K w K we‡ePbv Kwiqv cÖvBg wek^we ¨vj‡qi BDwRwm Aby‡gvw Z wgicyi K¨v¤úvm nB‡Z 2012, 2013 Ges 2014 Bs mv‡j DËxY© †gvU 154 Rb GjGj.we (m¤§vb) wkÿv_©xi ZvwjKv wb¤œwjwLZ k‡Z© gÄyi Kiv nBj Ges 2012, 2013 Ges 2014 Bs mv‡j GjGj.we (cvm) †Kv‡m© DËxY© †gvU 1399 Rb wkÿv_x©i ZvwjKv bvgÄyi Kiv nBj| kZ©mg~nt (kZ© ÕKÕ cÖ‡hvR¨ nB‡e)Ó

[Emphasis supplied by us.] From the above it is apparent that in the meeting dated 15.09.2014 the representatives of the Prime University admitted that:

ÔÔgvgjv-‡gvKÏgv Zvnv‡ i fz‡j I wek^we ¨vjq AvBb gvb¨ bv Kwiqv wek^we ¨vjq cwiPvjbv Kivi Rb¨B nBqv‡Q Ges GBRb¨ Zvnviv h‡_ó wkÿv cvBqv‡Q|Ó

In the meeting they undertakes that in future they

will not admit more than 50(fifty) students in every

semester of law course and will close LL.B (pass) course. It appears that the Prime University, Mirpur Campus, sent a list of 1553 law graduates passed in 2012, 2013 and 2014 which Bar Council found abnormal. In the resolution it was decided that:

ÔÔ†emiKvix wek^we ¨vjq¸wj cvewjK wek^we ¨vj‡qi b¨vq GjGj.we Abvm© ev GjGj.we cvm ‡Kvm© Gi †h †Kvb GKwU †Kvm© cwiPvjbv Kwi‡e|Ó

We have perused the Bangladesh legal practitioner and

Bar Council Order, 1972 (P.O No.46 of 1972). There is a provision in Article 40(2)(t) that the Bar Council may, with the prior approval of the government, by notification in the official gazette may frame rules providing that ‘the standard of legal education to be observed by universities in Bangladesh and inspection of the universities for that purpose’. But unfortunately the Bar Council remains a silent spectator in this regard. In the judgment and order passed by this Division in Civil Appeal No.235 of 2014 alongwith C.P. Nos.2761-2764 and 2777-2779 of 2016, 2498, 2880, 3016, 3570, 3577 and 2873 of 2016 after thorough discussions their lordships opined, amongst others, that:

(a)       ............................................  

(b)       ............................................  

(c)       Bangladesh Bar Council is rendering public utility service and law cast on this Body in the national hope that the members of legal profession will serve society and keep the cannons of ethics defeating an honourable order.

(d)       The Bar Council shall frame Rules with approval of the government to monitor the standard of legal education to be observed by universities and law colleges in Bangladesh and the inspection of the universities and colleges for that purpose in accordance with article 40(2)(t) of P.O.46 of 1972.

(f) The Bar Council has exclusive power to recognize a degree in law obtained by any person from any university or college and it has power to curtail/exonerate the power to practice of any person either in the district courts or in the High Court Division.

(h) The Bar Council has power not to recognize any degree in respect of any student for being enrolled as an advocate who has not studied four years honours course in law alongwith other subjects in any private university.

It is manifest from the resolution dated 15.09.2014 that the Prime University by admitting their fault undertakes that in future they will not admit more than 50(fifty) students in any semester of law course and they will close LL.B (pass) course and minutes of the resolution published in the notice board of the Bar Council as well as uploaded in the official website of the Bar Council but unfortunately these respondents claiming that they have completed their LL.B(pass) course from Prime University in 2014 to 2016 sessions as such the argument of Mr. Qumrul Haque Siddique that the Bar Council punishing the students for the wrong done by the university does not hold water.

It seems that the petitioners filed the writ petition on behest of the Prime University to regularize the wrong done by the university. In other words it is a test case by the Prime University to cover their wrong done and legalize other more than 1300 law students who completed LL.B (pass) course from the said University in violation of the undertaking by the university. This cannot be allowed.

No doubt that the Bar Council failed to Act as per P.O No.46 of 1972 i.e. the Bangladesh Legal Practitioner and Bar Council Order, 1972. The Bar Council should be more visible and keep it in mind that the Bar Council is created not only for routine work but also to monitor the standard of legal education for upholding the great tradition of the law profession.

It is pertinent to be mentioned here that to keep the standard of the profession the elected representatives of the Bar Council as well as the ex-officio Chairman of the Bar Council should take appropriate steps to uphold the great tradition of legal profession.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with the above observation. The judgment and order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.10506 of 2019 is hereby set aside.

Send a copy of this judgment to the Attorney General and ex-officio Chairman of the Bar Council and also to the Vice-Chairman of the Bar Council.

C J.     J.

J. J.

The 13th April,2022 /Jamal,B.R./*Words-2650*